clean slate (poll added)

[TheForgivenOne]

im talking about what the op was talking about though. "forum bans vacations"

If that's the case, then the argument needing to see the numbers go both ways - is it actually the case that people who get forum bans
leave the site?

People leave because OTHER people get banned.
The comparison to some guy "punching another one in the face" just tells me how far up your ass you reached. It's TEH INTERWEBS. NO ONE CARES. And if you do you sohuldn't.
This site has lost money because of forum bans. I bet you it HASN'T lost money because a ban DIDN'T occur.

I don't believe I agree with this...I have left other sites due to behavior of other posters. I have seriously considered leaving this site for similar reasons. In fact, the behavior of other posters is specifically why I am not currently a premium (as I was for a couple of years)...because I'm still teetering a bit with the thought of possibly leaving.

You say that "you shouldn't care"...it's not really that, so much as I don't believe that I should have to put up with behavior I seriously dislike simply to participate on a site that I have paid money for.

And if someone leaves the site because another user receives a forum ban...doesn't that go against your "shouldn't care" rule?

That's not really mean by you "shouldn't care". What I mean by that is people shouldn't be offended by things they see on the internet, because people are out JUST to offend people. They're everywhere, they're unavoidable. But on this site you have the ability to foe and never see another post by a user ever again.

On the other hand, I'm not saying you shouldn't care about the entertainment. There are a lot of funny people on this site and others, and it's annoying when they're forced to leave. The entertainment is gone. That's the difference.

So we get to deal with the player who shall not be named again? (For liability purposes, I will not be posting their username on ze forums.)

[stahrgazer]

I think if I was the owner of trhe site I would be loathe to ban permanently paying customers...

If you're the owner of a restaurant, and a customer starts punching other customers in the face, you throw him out, because the business you'd gain from keeping him is not worth the business you'd lose from the other customers.

True, but usually you let him come back and prove he can dine like a gentleman... you just keep a very close watch for a while... which is what this suggestion indicates.

[army of nobunaga]

If I was bragging about real life darling I would comment on the size of my ... biceps.

In debate, its called establishing authority for a position. I do not brag about my life because it is usually very dull, and like most people I sometimes am not happy with it.

But thats ok that It pisses you off, its what I do best in my real life here.

--

edit , it makes me chuckle when people consider something on a forum as not "real life" what is this for you? A dream?
Its all one enchilada homechick.

[stahrgazer]

That's not really mean by you "shouldn't care". What I mean by that is people shouldn't be offended by things they see on the internet, because people are out JUST to offend people. They're everywhere, they're unavoidable. But on this site you have the ability to foe and never see another post by a user ever again.

As for a society thing, aog? We SHOULD care, and we SHOULD be offended by some things, and we SHOULD express that distaste by penalizing the distasteful. It's how dogs and little kiddies learn: repetitive "NO!" (and sometimes shake a newspaper at them.)

I would avoid a restaurant whose manager doesn't care about the pleasant dining experience I want.

On the other hand, this suggestion suggests giving people chances to grow up and stop being out there JUST to offend people; I can agree with that. If they are allowed back, and behave then they're no longer messing up my experience. If they start messing up the experience again, they get the NO! and the newspaper shake again. Simply add that, if they repeat the offense within their probationary period, they get the next level of shake.

[Metsfanmax]

I think if I was the owner of trhe site I would be loathe to ban permanently paying customers...

If you're the owner of a restaurant, and a customer starts punching other customers in the face, you throw him out, because the business you'd gain from keeping him is not worth the business you'd lose from the other customers.

True, but usually you let him come back and prove he can dine like a gentleman... you just keep a very close watch for a while... which is what this suggestion indicates.

Really? I don't think that ever happens.

[army of nobunaga]

That's not really mean by you "shouldn't care". What I mean by that is people shouldn't be offended by things they see on the internet, because people are out JUST to offend people. They're everywhere, they're unavoidable. But on this site you have the ability to foe and never see another post by a user ever again.

As for a society thing, aog? We SHOULD care, and we SHOULD be offended by some things, and we SHOULD express that distaste by penalizing the distasteful. It's how dogs and little kiddies learn: repetitive "NO!" (and sometimes shake a newspaper at them.)

I would avoid a restaurant whose manager doesn't care about the pleasant dining experience I want.

On the other hand, this suggestion suggests giving people chances to grow up and stop being out there JUST to offend people; I can agree with that. If they are allowed back, and behave then they're no longer messing up my experience. If they start messing up the experience again, they get the NO! and the newspaper shake again. Simply add that, if they repeat the offense within their probationary period, they get the next level of shake.

for this not to be real life, you take the forum pretty damn serious...
". If they are allowed back, and behave then they're no longer messing up my experience"


really?


edit--
the real question atm is this... im cooking and im not sure if I can make a beef marsala sauce with merlot, all I have is merlot....

[Woodruff]

im talking about what the op was talking about though. "forum bans vacations"

If that's the case, then the argument needing to see the numbers go both ways - is it actually the case that people who get forum bans
leave the site?

People leave because OTHER people get banned.
The comparison to some guy "punching another one in the face" just tells me how far up your ass you reached. It's TEH INTERWEBS. NO ONE CARES. And if you do you sohuldn't.
This site has lost money because of forum bans. I bet you it HASN'T lost money because a ban DIDN'T occur.

I don't believe I agree with this...I have left other sites due to behavior of other posters. I have seriously considered leaving this site for similar reasons. In fact, the behavior of other posters is specifically why I am not currently a premium (as I was for a couple of years)...because I'm still teetering a bit with the thought of possibly leaving.

You say that "you shouldn't care"...it's not really that, so much as I don't believe that I should have to put up with behavior I seriously dislike simply to participate on a site that I have paid money for.

And if someone leaves the site because another user receives a forum ban...doesn't that go against your "shouldn't care" rule?

That's not really mean by you "shouldn't care". What I mean by that is people shouldn't be offended by things they see on the internet, because people are out JUST to offend people. They're everywhere, they're unavoidable. But on this site you have the ability to foe and never see another post by a user ever again.

On the other hand, I'm not saying you shouldn't care about the entertainment. There are a lot of funny people on this site and others, and it's annoying when they're forced to leave. The entertainment is gone. That's the difference.

No, the REAL difference is that among the users who have been perma-banned, I personally did not consider a single one of them to be entertaining. And foe'ing them is a nice idea, but when they inject themselves into so many threads as some of them did (as do I also, of course), it was impossible to avoid their crap even with their being foed.

(That being said, you'll note I came down in general agreement with the original post due to the probationary periods involved.)

[army of nobunaga]

when you say that , it makes sense to me woodruff.

I guess as a player im glad they perma ban if it messes up the fun for you and other people I respect.

I do overall like the Idea that eddie suggested , some sort of structure to the mods chaos , at least structure we understood, would be nice.

[Army of GOD]

That's not really mean by you "shouldn't care". What I mean by that is people shouldn't be offended by things they see on the internet, because people are out JUST to offend people. They're everywhere, they're unavoidable. But on this site you have the ability to foe and never see another post by a user ever again.

As for a society thing, aog? We SHOULD care, and we SHOULD be offended by some things, and we SHOULD express that distaste by penalizing the distasteful. It's how dogs and little kiddies learn: repetitive "NO!" (and sometimes shake a newspaper at them.)

I would avoid a restaurant whose manager doesn't care about the pleasant dining experience I want.

On the other hand, this suggestion suggests giving people chances to grow up and stop being out there JUST to offend people; I can agree with that. If they are allowed back, and behave then they're no longer messing up my experience. If they start messing up the experience again, they get the NO! and the newspaper shake again. Simply add that, if they repeat the offense within their probationary period, they get the next level of shake.

But taste is completely subjective. Some people thing the n-word is completely offensive and wish to never ever hear it. Others think it's ok on occasion, but really only when you spell it with a "ga" at the end and not an "er". Others don't give a shit and use which ever version they feel like all the time. Who gets to judge what is and isn't acceptable?

Besides, if someone was using the n-word like crazy then you can simply FAMO. End-o story. You never ever have to hear from that person again. I honestly don't get why bans exist at all when everyone can just FAMO and mods can just delete spam.

The punching at a restaurant is a horrid comparison. A better one is simply where some people at another table are using obscenities and you are offended by them, BUT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETELY MUTE them. Yes, it doesn't mean that they aren't saying the obscenities anymore, but if you care about that I am sorry for your little butt.

And we are not little kids or dogs, we are, for the most part, adults. So who the Hell do you think you are trying to teach people how to act?

No, the REAL difference is that among the users who have been perma-banned, I personally did not consider a single one of them to be entertaining. And foe'ing them is a nice idea, but when they inject themselves into so many threads as some of them did (as do I also, of course), it was impossible to avoid their crap even with their being foed.

(That being said, you'll note I came down in general agreement with the original post due to the probationary periods involved.)

But other people find them entertaining, and I know several people who did not buy premium back because of this.

[Metsfanmax]

The punching at a restaurant is a horrid comparison. A better one is simply where some people at another table are using obscenities and you are offended by them, BUT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETELY MUTE them. Yes, it doesn't mean that they aren't saying the obscenities anymore, but if you care about that I am sorry for your little butt.

I was talking about site-wide rule breaking when I made that comparison, not forum rule-breaking.

[stahrgazer]

And we are not little kids or dogs, we are, for the most part, adults. So who the Hell do you think you are trying to teach people how to act?

Ah, except, the only thing that separates us from dogs is civilization, which, as adults, means we know when to modify our language. And yes, I would stop attending a restaurant if all the rest of the clientele was busy calling each other niggah, fuckah, or any of those other words that children thing are "cool" and dogs wouldn't care about.

[eddie2]

ok guys and girls ive added a poll to this

[Woltato]

sounds reasonable. Everyone deserves a second chance in life and on CC.

[eddie2]

there must be more people with there thoughts

[Woodruff]

And we are not little kids or dogs, we are, for the most part, adults. So who the Hell do you think you are trying to teach people how to act?

Sometimes, people do need to be taught how to act. Yes, I'm looking at you.

No, the REAL difference is that among the users who have been perma-banned, I personally did not consider a single one of them to be entertaining. And foe'ing them is a nice idea, but when they inject themselves into so many threads as some of them did (as do I also, of course), it was impossible to avoid their crap even with their being foed.

(That being said, you'll note I came down in general agreement with the original post due to the probationary periods involved.)

But other people find them entertaining, and I know several people who did not buy premium back because of this.

Sure, I can believe that. I would, however, strongly suggest that those individuals drove away more paying customers than they did to bring them in.

[Woodruff]

I'm really surprised at the large number of voters that think this is a silly idea. No, not surprised I guess...more like "very confused".

[Ace Rimmer]

it's easy, don't break the rules and you won't have to worry about the punishments you have received in the past. You have plenty of changes before you get to a long ban term, if you can't control yourself then it's nobody's fault but yours.

[Ace Rimmer]

when you say that , it makes sense to me woodruff.

I guess as a player im glad they perma ban if it messes up the fun for you and other people I respect.

I do overall like the Idea that eddie suggested , some sort of structure to the mods chaos , at least structure we understood, would be nice.

What don't you understand? I'm serious, if there's something you don't understand we can clear it up for you, we want our rules/etc to be clear.

[grifftron]

CC rules are not hard to follow, and if you break them once and get warned or put on a "short vacation" maybe you should learn from that and be more cautious the next time around. If those that break the rules want a clean slate just so they can have a 2nd chance at goofing around / breaking some more rules with minor punishment on purpose, I VOTE NO.

mature up a bit and no one would break these simple rules. When i was in 5th grade i acted immature on AOL chat. dunno if its still around but if you want to give it a try go for it.

-griff

[Serbia]

I totally agree with the "clean slate" idea. Things should be bounced from the record after so much time, especially for some of the many minor, petty offenses that CC thinks is smart to lead up to long bans.

[stahrgazer]

for this not to be real life, you take the forum pretty damn serious...

Real people are usually typing behind the screen, so thinking that "just because it's online, real emotions will never be involved, and should never be involved" is pretty stupid.

If your best friend, wife, or lover, wrote you a really nasty letter, would you consider it "real?" Would your emotions get involved, or would you think, "hah, this is just paper, I won't take offense unless they say this to my face?"

Or, people can think that because they've never physically met this or that person, and are unlikely to do so, then it's fine and dandy to be nasty. Why? Why is it okay to be nasty to a stranger? "Because you can, and they can't do anything about it," is a bit... ridiculous...possibly even cowardly.

At any rate, giving people another chance seems reasonable.. and as a few people pointed out, especially if their offenses were minor and not repeated over a long period of time.

[Woodruff]

CC rules are not hard to follow, and if you break them once and get warned or put on a "short vacation" maybe you should learn from that and be more cautious the next time around. If those that break the rules want a clean slate just so they can have a 2nd chance at goofing around / breaking some more rules with minor punishment on purpose, I VOTE NO.
mature up a bit and no one would break these simple rules. When i was in 5th grade i acted immature on AOL chat. dunno if its still around but if you want to give it a try go for it.
-griff

I agree, except for the fact that so many of the offenses (including ones that I feel are perfectly legitimate as deserving some punishment) are really very minor in the big scheme of things and that if someone is here long enough (I'm talking 7 or 8 years), they're bound to be getting 6-month bans for exceedingly minor problems. That seems...well, frankly unreasonable AND "bad business".

Don't misunderstand...I PREFER that people are sanctioned for bad behavior. However, I also very much believe that on a site such as this, behaving well for the extended times that eddie lists in this suggestion should have some value as to what level of that sanction is applied.

[eddie2]

is this going 2 get submited

[TheForgivenOne]

is this going 2 get submited

For 1, this hasn't been stickied yet. 2, all the details haven't been hammered out yet.

[Woodruff]

is this going 2 get submited

For 1, this hasn't been stickied yet. 2, all the details haven't been hammered out yet.

Well sticky this bad boy then.